scholarly journals Gauge invariant definition of the jet quenching parameter

2013 ◽  
Vol 910-911 ◽  
pp. 243-247
Author(s):  
Michael Benzke
2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Benzke ◽  
Nora Brambilla ◽  
Miguel A. Escobedo ◽  
Antonio Vairo

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (11) ◽  
pp. 1750062 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bum-Hoon Lee ◽  
Youngman Kim ◽  
D. G. Pak ◽  
Takuya Tsukioka ◽  
P. M. Zhang

We consider nonlinear wave type solutions with intrinsic mass scale parameter and zero spin in a pure SU(2) quantum chromodynamics (QCD). A new stationary solution which can be treated as a system of static Wu–Yang monopole dressed in off-diagonal gluon field is proposed. A remarkable feature of such a solution is that it possesses a finite energy density everywhere. All considered nonlinear wave type solutions have common features: presence of the mass scale parameter, nonvanishing projection of the color fields along the propagation direction and zero spin. The last property requires revision of the gauge invariant definition of the spin density operator which is supposed to produce spin one states for the massless vector gluon field. We construct a gauge invariant definition of the classical gluon spin density operator which is unique and Lorentz frame independent.


2015 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
TERESA BATES ◽  
TOKE MEIER CARLSEN ◽  
DAVID PASK

In this paper we give a formula for the$K$-theory of the$C^{\ast }$-algebra of a weakly left-resolving labelled space. This is done by realizing the$C^{\ast }$-algebra of a weakly left-resolving labelled space as the Cuntz–Pimsner algebra of a$C^{\ast }$-correspondence. As a corollary, we obtain a gauge-invariant uniqueness theorem for the$C^{\ast }$-algebra of any weakly left-resolving labelled space. In order to achieve this, we must modify the definition of the$C^{\ast }$-algebra of a weakly left-resolving labelled space. We also establish strong connections between the various classes of$C^{\ast }$-algebras that are associated with shift spaces and labelled graph algebras. Hence, by computing the$K$-theory of a labelled graph algebra, we are providing a common framework for computing the$K$-theory of graph algebras, ultragraph algebras, Exel–Laca algebras, Matsumoto algebras and the$C^{\ast }$-algebras of Carlsen. We provide an inductive limit approach for computing the$K$-groups of an important class of labelled graph algebras, and give examples.


2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (38) ◽  
pp. 2861-2871 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. GULZARI ◽  
J. SWAIN ◽  
A. WIDOM

It is well known that the long-range nature of the Coulomb interaction makes the definition of asymptotic "in" and "out" states of charged particles problematic in quantum field theory. In particular, the notion of a simple particle pole in the vacuum charged particle propagator is untenable and should be replaced by a more complicated branch cut structure describing an electron interacting with a possibly infinite number of soft photons. Previous work suggests a Dirac propagator raised to a fractional power dependent upon the fine structure constant, however the exponent has not been calculated in a unique gauge-invariant manner. It has even been suggested that the fractal "anomalous dimension" can be removed by a gauge transformation. Here, a gauge-invariant non-perturbative calculation will be discussed yielding an unambiguous fractional exponent. The closely analogous case of soft graviton exponents is also briefly explored.


1998 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-127
Author(s):  
D Solomon

Quantum field theory is assumed to be gauge invariant. We show that for a Dirac field the assumption of gauge invariance impacts on the way the vacuum state is defined, and also that the conventional definition of the vacuum state must be modified to take into account the requirements of gauge invariance.PACS No. 1100


Geophysics ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 692-692 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. B. Jupp ◽  
Keeva Vozoff

Despite the time that has passed since the original short discussion, I think some useful points can be made regarding the note by Esparza and Gómez‐Treviño. First, the authors are quite correct to point out that (3) of their note is not a rotation invariant definition of phase as was claimed in the original discussion. This slip most likely carried into later texts unchallenged. The fact is, however, that (3) is rotation invariant for a 2‐D earth. It was in this context that the change was made to the definition in Vozoff (1971).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document